Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

If you’re following the Rittenhouse trial


Buckshot Bob
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

The Sunday NYTimes Magazine had a long article about the case this last Sunday. A remarkably dispassionate and balanced account. The trial could go either way, but the defense has a very good shot, I think. 

 

The big problem for the kid is that he should never have been anywhere near there. Another kid who had no wise mentors or guidance.

neither should the rioters but i see very little coming of that 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 12:17 PM, Sixgun Sheridan said:

This is an interesting case, for the simple fact that it will have ramifications for gun owners and any "patriots" who think they are able to claim self-defense even if they deliberately inserted themselves into a situation where they had to use deadly force.

How about the people who attacked the kid and destroyed property?  They inserted themselves into a situation, actually creating that situation, where they could have expected to be met with deadly force.

 

That is a BS argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Forty Rod SASS 3935
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 12:40 PM, Rye Miles #13621 said:

He was also underage to carry a firearm I think he was 17 at the time. 

So?  Don't you agree that everyone should have the right to keep and bears arms?  If he's old enough to drive a car and fly a plane he should have that right.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 1:00 PM, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:

A truer statement has never been uttered.

 

Dont need a reason for a riot....

And the rioters should be met with gunfire if they endanger the life or health of anyone else.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Not following. I’m trying to mellow out my life. To much drama, hatred, politics makes Bob a dull boy.

Bottles, a round on me for my family here.

Danke!  I'll have a sarsaparilla neat.

Edited by Forty Rod SASS 3935
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

I know that’s the argument the prosecutor is going to use , but I just don’t agree. He’s got as much of a right to be there as any protesters, looters or vandals . Plenty of people that live on the borders of states go to a different state every day. If he’s a US citizen he’s got the right to be anywhere he can be legally in the US . It may not have been smart to be there , but that probably applies to all the participants.

All that being said I am a proponent of don’t go stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things, but that’s what some people do , especially when their young. 
 

100%+

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

How about the people who attacked the kid and destroyed property.  They inserted themselves into a situation, actually creating that situation, where they could have expected to be met with deadly force?

 

That is a BS argument.

 

We will see what the jurors have to say. Nobody here is saying the rioters aren't responsible for causing the mayhem to begin with. But unless they are threatening your own home or they attack you when you were just trying to mind your own business it's problematic to claim self defense. Cops are paid to go looking for trouble... that's their job. It's not a private citizen's duty, and in fact we are normally expected to avoid trouble if at all possible and let the authorities handle it. Wandering public streets in the middle of a full-blown riot with a rifle in hand doesn't make you the acting sheriff. If anything it merely antagonizes the rioters.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

We will see what the jurors have to say. Nobody here is saying the rioters aren't responsible for causing the mayhem to begin with. But unless they are threatening your own home or they attack you when you were just trying to mind your own business it's problematic to claim self defense. Cops are paid to go looking for trouble... that's their job. It's not a private citizen's duty, and in fact we are normally expected to avoid trouble if at all possible and let the authorities handle it. Wandering public streets in the middle of a full-blown riot with a rifle in hand doesn't make you the acting sheriff. If anything it merely antagonizes the rioters.

There's so much wrong with that I can't even begin to comment.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

We will see what the jurors have to say. Nobody here is saying the rioters aren't responsible for causing the mayhem to begin with. But unless they are threatening your own home or they attack you when you were just trying to mind your own business it's problematic to claim self defense. Cops are paid to go looking for trouble... that's their job. It's not a private citizen's duty, and in fact we are normally expected to avoid trouble if at all possible and let the authorities handle it. Wandering public streets in the middle of a full-blown riot with a rifle in hand doesn't make you the acting sheriff. If anything it merely antagonizes the rioters.

Nah... Can't go there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kid went looking for an excuse to shoot someone.  Found the excuse.  Mumsie drove him someplace he had no real business being.  She belongs in jail for aiding and abetting.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

We will see what the jurors have to say. Nobody here is saying the rioters aren't responsible for causing the mayhem to begin with. But unless they are threatening your own home or they attack you when you were just trying to mind your own business it's problematic to claim self defense. Cops are paid to go looking for trouble... that's their job. It's not a private citizen's duty, and in fact we are normally expected to avoid trouble if at all possible and let the authorities handle it. 

  Actually, some states have what's called a "good samaritan" law, and you can be committing a crime by not rendering help.

Screenshot_20211104-200659_Chrome.thumb.jpg.e5fe9b24cfd53d3887110d7ab6821cc8.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Kid went looking for an excuse to shoot someone.  Found the excuse.  Mumsie drove him someplace he had no real business being.  She belongs in jail for aiding and abetting.

I guess that's one way to look at it. Another would be this young fella knew there was going to be looting, burning, and injuries. Thats why he was seen with a fire extinguisher and said exactly that on a news interview before the self defense shooting happened. He wanted to be able to help where he could but did not want to be unarmed while doing so.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

We will see what the jurors have to say. Nobody here is saying the rioters aren't responsible for causing the mayhem to begin with. But unless they are threatening your own home or they attack you when you were just trying to mind your own business it's problematic to claim self defense. Cops are paid to go looking for trouble... that's their job. It's not a private citizen's duty, and in fact we are normally expected to avoid trouble if at all possible and let the authorities handle it. Wandering public streets in the middle of a full-blown riot with a rifle in hand doesn't make you the acting sheriff. If anything it merely antagonizes the rioters.

 

You'll have to forgive an ignorant and uninformed Canadian here, but I have to ask what is a couple of stupid questions.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I really would like to know.

If the police officers could not, would not or were unable to control or end the rioting and burning, whose responsibility was it to restore order and safety?

I read about your Second Amendment (and am envious) and to an outsider looking in, is the example of the uncontrolled riot and arson one of the kind of things your Founding Fathers created it for? 

In the circumstance, didn't the armed citizens out trying to stop the destruction not meet the criteria of an armed militia?

Again, I'm not trying to start an argument or take a side, I'm just curious.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

 

You'll have to forgive an ignorant and uninformed Canadian here, but I have to ask what is a couple of stupid questions.

I read about your Second Amendment (and am envious) and to an outsider looking in, is the example of the uncontrolled riot and arson one of the kind of things your Founding Fathers created it for? 

In the circumstance, didn't the armed citizens out trying to stop the destruction not meet the criteria of an armed militia?

 

 

 

A lot of people don't realize that we are ALL the Militia.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great questions, Cold Lake.   None of them are remotely stupid.  I agree with Sgt Sabre’s response.  

 

If any of these characters hadn’t tried to dissarm young Kyle, they’d likely be alive today.  I understand some folks saying he had no business being there.  To each of you, I’ll add that none of his attackers had any business trying to dissarm him.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

A whole lot of people in this saga went looking for trouble... and found it. Either they all belong in jail or no one.

.

You should read the transcript, or watch the video from the trial.  The kid went there to protect property and offer medical aid.  Just because he had a gun doesn't mean he went looking for trouble.  I carry a gun whenever I leave the house.  Does that mean I'm looking for trouble?

 

Every witness (prosecution witnesses by the way) is stating that he was non-confrontational and was consistently asking if anyone needed medical aid.  When told to go F himself by a protestor his response was I love you to ma'am.   When confronted his response was to retreat.  Hardly the actions of someone looking for trouble.  

 

You do the kid a disservice and are spreading untrue information when you characterize his actions the way you have without any factual basis. 

12 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Kid went looking for an excuse to shoot someone.  Found the excuse.  Mumsie drove him someplace he had no real business being.  She belongs in jail for aiding and abetting.

Again, you are offering an opinion without any basis in fact.  The trial transcripts and videos are available and directly contradict your statement. 

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not to their own facts.  

 

Yesterday the judge had to warn the ADA not to try to put words in the mouth of his own witness.  The prosecution is a train wreck right now.  Binger is flat out incompetent.

 

Here's an exchange between the ADA and his own witness. 

 

Binger: So Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, in the back, as he was falling, correct?

McGinnis: No, Rittenhouse didn’t fire until Rosenbaum charged and lunged at him.

Binger: So he shot him as he was falling?

McGinnis: No, not falling, lunging.

Binger: So you’re saying he shot him while he was falling?

McGinnis: No, that’s not my testimony. Lunging.

Binger:  Your statement in this interview is different than what you’re telling us now, you said in the interview that Rosenbaum was falling when the defendant shot him.

McGinnis: I would not say that the defendant shot Rosenbaum as he was falling, I would not use that word, “falling,” I’m not saying that.

Binger: but you said in the interview—

McGinnis: I’m not saying that now!

 

Judge Schroeder interrupted Binger’s questioning of his own witness, telling Binger that he was not to tell the witness what the witness was saying.

 

Then on redirect:

 

Binger:  You can’t read Rosenbaum’s mind, right? You can’t know what he was actually thinking, right? Your interpretation of his intent is nothing but complete guesswork, isn’t that right?

McGinnis:  Well, he said F-you, and then he reached for the weapon.

 

You have to keep in mind, this is a witness that the PROSECUTION called and he got roasted by his own witness.

 

The way it's going the defense shouldn't even have to put on a case, the prosecution is making it for them. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this trial goes on long enough to capture the whole country's attention.  I want to see all the facts accurately represented and IF this case was prosecutorial over reach based on politics, I want to see the DA hung out to dry and publicly shamed out of office and disbarred.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

I hope this trial goes on long enough to capture the whole country's attention.  I want to see all the facts accurately represented and IF this case was prosecutorial over reach based on politics, I want to see the DA hung out to dry and publicly shamed out of office and disbarred.

IF?:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Bill Burt said:

Bob is a former law dog, he wants to hear everything first.  With all the spin that gets put on the news I don't blame him. 

I understand the desire. But seeing as how it seems that the ONLY person being charged with anything having to do with the riots, where hundreds of people did uncounted financial damage, is Rittenhouse, AND the prosecution's own witnesses don't back up the charges, it kinda looks like a political issue and not a public safety issue. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I understand the desire. But seeing as how it seems that the ONLY person being charged with anything having to do with the riots, where hundreds of people did uncounted financial damage, is Rittenhouse, AND the prosecution's own witnesses don't back up the charges, it kinda looks like a political issue and not a public safety issue. 

It's quite possible that when it's over Binger and Nifong will be mentioned together from now on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The supreme court (unless my memory is fading) stated quite some time ago that the police DO NOT have a constitutional duty to protect "you" or your "stuff" - based on that single bit of translation of justice - it would  seem like deferring to the 'protect and serve' mantra of a police force is simply inviting trouble.

 

The police across this great nation of ours are continuously underappreciated and more importantly, under-supported by the very government they work for.  Rare is the event that a police officer performs poorly and the Chief, the Mayor, and the DA all rally behind that officer with a "mistakes will be made" comment to support their officers.  The stock response  always seems to be is "an investigation will be held and our officers will be held accountable"

...everyone can feel free to unload your weapons, secure them in your home, and wait for the cops to come arrest the folks that are destroying your neighborhood (even though the guy you elected as mayor just told them to stand down) but it may not turn out as expected

 

Or you can grab a pitchfork and clean out the stall yourself.

Edited by Chuck Steak
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

 

You'll have to forgive an ignorant and uninformed Canadian here, but I have to ask what is a couple of stupid questions.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I really would like to know.

If the police officers could not, would not or were unable to control or end the rioting and burning, whose responsibility was it to restore order and safety?

I read about your Second Amendment (and am envious) and to an outsider looking in, is the example of the uncontrolled riot and arson one of the kind of things your Founding Fathers created it for? 

In the circumstance, didn't the armed citizens out trying to stop the destruction not meet the criteria of an armed militia?

Again, I'm not trying to start an argument or take a side, I'm just curious.

 

 

Hooray for our side, even north of the line.  I wish everyone understood these things as well as you do.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the same thing.  Evidently the fbi had IR or heat tracking on the whole event, so they can track people’s movement.  So far it seems both prosecution and defense have the same basic story of what happened and it’s supported by video and eye witnesses.    The general take was the prosecution was doing a very poor job of providing anything that contradicted the defense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the prosecution brings out their smoking gun soon I’m going with this being a totally political prosecution. You would think at this point they would have presented something. The worst thing I have heard about the kid so far is that he misrepresented the extent of his medical training by claiming to be trained as a EMT . But he’s not on trial for that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.